1 2026:CGHC:8134 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.247 of 2026 1 - Gopal Krishna Goenka S/o Shri Omprakash Goenka, Aged About 47 Years R/o Belpahar, District- Jharsuguda (Odisha) 2 - Vipin Agrawal S/o Shri Deshraj Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years R/o H. No. 138, Krishna Vihar Colony, JSPL Marg, Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, (SHO) P.S. Tamnaar, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nishant Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.18 15:35:21 +0530 2 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the Applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.09/2026 registered at Police Station – Tamnaar (Raigarh) (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 296, 310(2), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 as also under Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act 2. As per the prosecution case, the Applicants, along with others, arrived at the complainant’s place armed with weapons such as firearms, lathis and hockey sticks, threatened to kill them, assaulted them, sprayed a substance into their eyes and forcibly took Rs.15,000/-, thereby committing offences relating to rioting, causing hurt, unlawful assembly, dacoity and violations under the Arms Act. On the basis of the above allegation, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the present Applicants. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the Applicants submits that the Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case for oblique and ulterior purposes and in fact it is the complainant side which caused damage and injuries to them. It is contended that the FIR has been lodged at the instance of the complainant, who is stated to be the President 3 of a truck association, only to pressurize and harass the Applicants and as a counterblast to their opposition to the alleged illegal extortion activities being carried out by the complainant group. The FIR is thus alleged to be manifestly malicious and an abuse of the process of law, instituted to shield the complainant association which was purportedly demanding illegal gratification of Rs.200–300 per truck from transporters for permitting entry into the State of Chhattisgarh. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the Applicants, who are permanent residents associated with a recognized truck association and there is no likelihood of their absconding. As the case rests on documentary and testimonial evidence and no recovery is to be effected from the Applicants, custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor warranted, therefore, they may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the allegations against the Applicants are serious in nature, involving rioting, assault, use of weapons and forcible taking of money. It is contended that the material collected during investigation prima facie discloses the involvement of the Applicants and that the FIR 4 cannot be termed as false or malicious at this stage. He further submits that during the course of the incident, both sides sustained certain injuries as the dispute had arisen between the Applicants and the complainant with regard to the operation of trucks. Considering the gravity of the offences and the requirement of proper investigation, it is argued that custodial interrogation of the Applicants may be necessary and therefore, they are not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material available in the case diary, this Court finds that the allegations against the Applicants arise out of a dispute in which the Applicants claim false implication and a counterblast to their opposition to the alleged illegal extortion activities of the complainant side. It is also noted that during the course of the incident, both sides sustained certain simple injuries as the dispute had arisen between the Applicants and the complainant with regard to the operation of trucks. The case appears to rest primarily on documentary and testimonial evidence, no specific recovery is to be effected from the Applicants and custodial interrogation does not appear necessary, at this stage. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Applicants have made out a fit 5 case for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Applicants – Gopal Krishna Goenka and Vipin Agrawal, on executing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The Applicants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d)The Applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicants shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Priya